agree.

what would really make a difference?

push the age back, to like 18 or 19 before you can even get your L.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D :D:D:D:D:D

wow things have changed a lot since the GLP was introduced. Luckily I was lucky to finish the whole GLP with the very first rules

written exam --->L, practice/wait 6 months; take N test---> drive with N for 1year with no passenger limit. Did all that around 17 and was able to take the car out for Grad Prom.

sucks for the kids now..oh wells

LOL, I had my class 5 at 16. The good old days before N's. Thinking back I drove like a tool when I was that age, the restricted licence is a good thing.

they need a retest every 5 years for everyone imo.... then every 2 years for people over 70

i'm willing to sacrifice my convenience if it means a few dangerous idiots lose their license...

I remember when I got my licence they just changed the rule where instead of waiting 6 months before getting your N, you needed to wait a full year. I wanted to rage then even with the 6 month increase so I can't imagine how the kids these days would feel.

+1 a bunch of my friends got their L's last year because they heard of this, I call :bullshit: just because it feels like every year they say this, I don't disagree with it but still feels like :bullshit: unless theres a source to back it up.

2 yrs for N sounds reasonable, maybe take off 6 months from N to class 5 haha

i agree, seniors should be tested way more often cause there are so many health problems and reaction time is much slower than your average person.

Good thing I've already finished with the GLP, already felt long enough with the 1 year then 2 year.

fixed.

I think they should revise the testing format.

a lot of ppl pass the road test due to luck of having the test at the right time. They probably can't pass it the second time.

30 mins is not really enough to judge someone's driving ability.

For example, if they didn't encounter any hard driving decisions during the test, then it's kinda unsafe to just pass that person.

for example, there should scenarios where they have to face a tail gater, or even a anxious driver on the road.


I remember for my test, a lady suddenly ran across the road nearly causing an accidents.

This is just one of the rumours that gets spread every year in high school.
Don't believe all this BS unless you actually see it on the icbc website.
Yet every year, there are people that actually fall for it. :lol

regardless, the worst are the kids who have their parents buy them a beater..
then they think it blows, cuz its crap..but at least have a car..
the same child might come out thinking that maybe if i thrash this beater, I will get a better car.

I think it's better to say that the worst are the kids who just don't deserve to be driving yet / aren't capable of accepting the responsibilities. It's entirely independent of what car they get, if they're an idiot, they'll fuck up one way or another.

Never had an N. So glad.

But then again, I was driving at my cousins farm in Alberta at age 12.

Now if only ICBC could do some more advanced driver tests for the FOB commercial drivers.

aka, all those people promiced a job even before they set foot into Canada through corrupt unions. Thats a different story.

^ +1

i laugh at the fob truckers that come into my work and cant back up worth a shit

Real life Takumi there. :rofl:

lol i have been hearing about this for years, even when i was about to get my L I heard this. That was about 4 years ago and still nothing has changed

:thumbsup:

Yeah... I know I did some pretty stupid things when I was freshly licensed... drove on the wrong side of the Kingsway around a median just for the hell of it (but at like 5am), going 160kmph around the UBC highway with a full car load and people sticking their heads out the window...

I don't remember exactly when I got my class 5, but all I know is that we were packing like eight people into my old Corolla station wagon, including two in the trunk... and that was in the summer after grade 10.

Ah yes, the good ol' days...

I pity the current new driver generation... only being able to drive one passenger.

I had my class 5 a few weeks after turning 16 (it was hard to book lessons between summer holidays) and right before the GLP was announced. There was a huge rush for all my friends to get theirs before the GLP went into effect. I'm glad I also got my idiot driving out of the way before ICBC implimented that Driving Risk Program.

I got nailed by a N driver not too long ago at Richmond (where else?). I support this.

18 should be when people get their L's
and the skills test should be ALOT harder

too many nubs on the road

and there should be mandatory annual re-examinations for richmond residents to prevent situations like these from happening again (still dont understand how this can even happen):


http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._8054819_n.jpg

Mandatory driver training. Period.

The time between getting your L and then your N will change absolutely nothing in terms of the quality of drivers we see on our roads. I have driven in quite a few different countries around the world and Vancouver / Victoria no joke have the worst and most unpredictable drivers I've ever seen.

A massive +1 to Anjew's post as well.

Doesn't affect me, so they could make it 5 years and I wouldn't care.

It'd be great if it was 18 for L and 2 years for N.